FLandis USADA trial to start

I know nothing about the science of all this.  I do know that (just like all of us) I would love for him to be found innocent.  It is such a fabulous story but one that rings of being too good to be true.  I do however not discount the possibility that there is more going on here.  The French it seems hated the fact that Lance dominated this sport for so many years and just when they get rid of him, another American comes along and wins.  Yes this sounds conspiracy based but based on what Lance went through and as hard as they tried to "catch" him cheating, it seems that they might have tried even harder in this case.

What about the facts regarding the actual test and circumstances surrounding it?  Lots of circumstantial evidence in your post but nothing that speaks to the actual event in question.

Who can say with any amount of certainty that Floyd is innocent or guilty at this point.  We, the public, are not privy to all the evidence or counter-arguments. 

I agree with Opus that any conspiracy theroy is ludicrous.  The idea that the French have an ongoing conspiracy against American cyclists is ridiculous in light of the fact that Armstrong has won 7 Tours.  If anything, I believe that there is an ongoing conspiracy by the cycling world against Canada because we have not had one Canadian win the Tour, not even one stage!?! 

I don't know all the facts, so I have no vote as to guilty or not.

But either he didn't take a banned substance and his name should be cleared, or he took one and should be penalized.  There's no need to debate what "difference" the substance may or may not have actually been to the race outcome.  He's either right or wrong.

Unfortunately, from what facts I have seen, only Floyd (and/or someone(s) close to Floyd) probably knows the true answer.  So everyone else will just have to live with the trial's decision.

The question of whether the synthetic-T has a beneficial impact has a bearing on whether it has taken willingly or "roostered" into his drink (as some people believe) ... the point being, if there is no beneficial effect for one day exposure, then why would he willingly take it?

I certainly don't know.  Nor do I care.  Either he took a banned substance or he didn't.  Black or white.  No forgiveness if what he took happened to be ineffective at the time.  If he was "slipped a mickey", that would be different.

But, like I said, even after the trial it's not likely we'll know the answer to this so we'll just have to live with the decision.

He's not defending his use because of its lack of effects.  He's calling into question the idea that he would take something that anybody knowledgable in the slightest about those drugs would never recommend. 

In the end, you're right.  It comes down to whether or not he used them.  Given the suspicious testing results, I don't see how you can use those results alone in coming to a personal conclusion about what happened.  If it were conclusive or without serious questions, nobody would be debating this.

Intent is certainly circumstantial, but it's useful when combined with objective data (the lab results).

Yes, I know.  And if I were a jury member in this case, I could see many avenues that might leave "reasonable doubt".  But we don't even have all the "facts" yet, so I wouldn't even try to weigh-in. 

The verdict will be what it is.  But either he cheated or he didn't, and the verdict won't change that.  That's my stance in the "debate". 

I do hope the verdict is accurate but, of course, we probably won't ever know.  So this debate could go on endlessly.